The November/December issue of LexisNexis Butterworths' Intellectual Property and Technology Cases contains full headnoted texts of just four judicial decisions, but they are of considerable substance:
* Nichia Corporation v Argos Ltd (Court of Appeal, England and Wales, noted here by the IPKat) - A majority verdict (Jacob LJ dissenting) on the extent to which disclosure of documents in patent litigation should be permitted;
* Lunan Group Ltd v Edwin Co Ltd (Chancery Division, England and Wales, noted here by the IPKat) - should a hearing officer in trade mark infringement proceedings take account of the fact that two arguably confusingly similar marks (FIORELLI and FIORUCCI) had been parallel-traded with no confusion on the part of the relevant public?
* Case T-215/03 SIGLA SA v OHIM (Court of First Instance of the European Communities), the "VIPS" case, in which the CFI ruled on how the Board of Appeal should approach appeals in which two different grounds of opposition are levelled against the Community trade mark applicant;
* Case C-29/05 OHIM v Kaul (European Court of Justice, noted here by the IPKat): is it mandatory, or forbidden, hear fresh evidence in Community trade mark appeals, or is there a true path between these conflicting positions?
The autumn 2007 issue of Oxford University Press' scholarly quarterly International Journal of Law and Information Technology has now been published. It can usually be relied on to feature something tasty for IP enthusiasts, and this issue is no exception. Multiqualified lawyer Jeffrey C. J. Lee has written a very good piece entitled "The ongoing design duty in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd--Casting the scope of copyright infringement even wider". You can read the abstract here (if you like P2P and don't see why internet service providers should be liable for third party content, prepare to be depressed... )
The fourth and final issue of Sweet & Maxwell's Intellectual Property Quarterly for 2007 carries four articles:
* A short, well-focused analysis by the IPQ's founder editor, John Adams, of the passing of the burden of IP royalty payments;
* Eritreian scholar Senai W. Andemariam considers the TRIPs Art.31 bis proposal of 6 December 2005;
* Louise Davies takes a robustly critical view of the Group B+ initiative towards global patent harmonisation;
* A dissertation by Christian Stallberg on the legal status of academic employees' inventions in Britain and and Germany and the consequences of that status for R&D agreeements.